Hacker News Reader

Comment by devoutsalsa | Hacker News Reader

Isn't it kind of implied that if you own a platform, you retain the discretion to remove stuff at any time, unless otherwise prohibited? The YouTube terms of service can be updated at any time, and will never include language promising to never take down content.

View on HN

I think it's just an American thing to treat private companies like the Wild West.

Companies have obligations too, and I think that in Europe (compared to the USA) more people would agree that it's better to limit companies if it benefits people.

Certainly, in this case, it's better for people to have their protests heard than for Google to flex it's censorious whims.

Terms and conditions are invalid in Germany (and probably much of Europe) if they run counter to established civil or criminal law. They are regularly thrown out in court.

For consumers, it is even better not to read the terms, because then they can say that they have been taken advantage of (it is harder to do that if you change a passage manually in a written contract).

That argument would imply that the terms of service are worthless as the platform owner can do whatever they want. That’s not how contracts work, at least not in Germany.

Imagine being responsible for writing the individual ToS for ever nation on Earth. That sounds hard.

Imagine doing business and getting revenue in every nation on the Earth. That sounds hard.

There are systems, such as international shipping and financial technology that simplify many of those difficulties for you, at least to the point of making revenue from a great many countries. Complying with the local laws (including paying taxes) is indeed where it gets hard.

They probably didn't bother at all. Not long ago Apple got fined because they implied that they would only provide one year warranty unless you paid for more, in the EU two years are the absolute minimum and telling your customers otherwise is not an option. As far as I could tell they just wrote the US version and translated that for every non English speaking country.

Google might also be intentionally lazy, the Google Play licensing terms for example generally fail in front of a court when they are challenged, as they actively violate every law on anti competitive behavior you could think up. Whenever that happens Google just carves out a new licensing region for that courts jurisdiction and keeps the terms unchanged for the remaining world.

Apple's Finnish warranty conditions still say that they offer a limited one (1) year warranty on their products. However, the warranty terms start with a bolded section about consumer protection laws and how this limited one (1) year warranty is an additional protection offered voluntarily by the manufacturer, and that it does not replace the rights given to consumers by these laws or in fact apply in claims made under consumer protection laws.

Many ToS often contain disclaimers all over the place to the effect of "this doesn't apply in cities/states/provinces/countries where the law says otherwise" and catch-alls to that effect. Sometimes that's enough, sometimes not; if the company still tries to enforce rules in a region where they are invalid then the ToS is simply even more meaningless.

> Isn't it kind of implied that if you own a platform, you retain the discretion to remove stuff at any time, unless otherwise prohibited?

This is a discussion about Germany making it clear to Google what they're prohibited from removing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com